[pascalxus]

are you just trolling for responses? well you got me.

You can't possibly believe that 70% marginal on > 100k is anywhere near reasonable. Here in CA, that means, you're income taxes would be 83% plus medicare and social sec urity which is +8%, and let's not forget the company pays another 7% of your salary on top of that (you don't ever see that 7% - that's the part they pay), and that's not even counting all the other taxes you pay after that. at that point, everyone would have to quit their jobs. to say that it would ruin the economy is the biggest understatement of a lifetime.

[xienze]

> You can't possibly believe that 70% marginal on > 100k is anywhere near reasonable.

Well, that's the rub: it depends on who you ask. If you ask someone making $30K per year, $100K is a fantastic sum worthy of a high tax rate. That's the problem with the "soak the rich" rhetoric: it's all a matter of perspective. Just pray that someone without any insight into your financial situation doesn't deem you "rich"!

[anth_anm]

They wouldn't be 83%, because it's a marginal rate.

[pascalxus]

it's more than 83% when you take into account all the other taxes: there's not just federal and state income taxes, please take a look at your pay stub, there's a lot of other stuff on there.

[geofft]

Please take a look at your 1040. My comment was about marginal rate. I would like the portion of my income above $100K to be taxed at 83%, and my income below $100K to be left alone. I would not like all of my income to be taxed at 83%.

[geofft]

Yes, and I live in NY which would also make marginal income over $100K have extremely diminishing returns.

I do not understand your argument that everyone would have to quit their jobs. They just wouldn't fight for raises once they made it to $100K. I started my career making $95K out of college. I can't say I'm more than $5K/year happier now. I just spend more to keep up with everyone else, mostly on housing.

[pascalxus]

have you ever been laid off for a year? you can't just assume you'll be gainfully employed your entire life. if another huge tech crash comes along, what will you do?

do you have savings? any retirement funds set up? any family? if you have family, your spending will skyrocket and you won't make it with 95K, even in new york. jsut so you know, child care runs about 22K per year per child (not tax decutible) and that's just the tip of iceberg. so don't have any children, if you wanna keep your spending low.

edit: serious question, is that equality worth it, if it means you're homeless and hungry on the street?

also, in SF 117K is considered low income for a family of 4: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Annual-Income-of-11740...

[geofft]

I think I'm being unclear about my argument. $95K today is not a great income in NYC. But that's not what I'm asking. In an alternate universe, where all income of all New Yorkers, not just me over $100K is taxed at 70%, is $95K still not a great income?

I suspect that in such an alternate NYC, very few renters (let's ignore buyers, because it makes it more complicated, but I think my argument applies there too) would be motivated to make significantly more than $100K. Therefore most people are going to be paying at most $100K/40 = $2500/month for housing according to the standard NYC rental guidelines. The market for 1BR apartments that cost $3000, $4000, $10,000/month no longer exists. (Double that for 2BRs.) In that housing market, not in the current NYC housing market, would I still end up homeless and hungry on the street if I had to pay rent from savings? I think there's a lot less chance that if I got laid off I'd be unable to make rent in this alternate universe, even if I had the savings of making $95K/year, than that if I got laid off from my current job making >>$100K/year and with my current savings I'd be unable to make rent in this universe.

Obviously in the NYC of current reality, I am not going to donate 70% of everything I make over $100K. The very fact that taxes are a collective activity is what makes them different from voluntary charity.

[alasdair_]

>not tax decutible

Flexible Savings Accounts can make some childcare tax deductable.

[BeetleB]

There are quite a few problems with your comment:

Medicare + Social security is 6.2%, and you don't pay it for income above $118.5K.

The 70% is marginal, not on the whole income.

The employer share (what you call 7%) is mostly irrelevant to the employee. It doesn't show up in my tax forms.

The whole point was that the exorbitant cost of living in CA would become unsustainable with such a tax, and the system will shift to account for it.

And finally:

>are you just trolling for responses? well you got me.

Violating HN guidelines.

[masonic]

  Medicare + Social security is 6.2%, and you don't pay it for income above $118.5K.

(Using TY2018 numbers): no, SS alone is 6.2% and Medicare is 1.45% (each to both employee and employer). Cap for SS is $128.4K, but there is not only no cap for Medicare, there is a surtax above $200K, taking it to 2.35% for income over $200K.